Disputatio:Mathematica

Mathematica fuit pagina mensis Maii 2008.

Num mathematica scientia est? In hac encyclopaedia, quid significat verbum "scientia"?--Faustus 02:38 mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Filling out some topics

Salvete Omnes,

I hope to fill in some of the stubs in the Math section. I may do a little reorganizing along the way. But I'll discuss it here before I do any renaming or deletions.

Specification of terms

I'd like to dedicate this section to a specification of terms. I already started a similar section under Algebraica, but I'd like to have them all one in place so that the same term doesn't get accidently used for different things.

I imagine that some Latin terms are well established from back when Latin was commonly used for discussing mathematics. But I don't believe important math journals/papers have been published in Latin for over 200 years. Yet many disciplines and terms have arisen since then.

I'll get the ball rolling with a few guesses I've made. For some, I don't even have guesses.

• abstract - abstractus, -a, -um
• binary operator - operator binarius?
• equation - aequatio -onis
• field - ? (see Disputatio:Algebraica, distinct from a "field of study")
• group - ? (see Disputatio:Algebraica)
• operation - opus? (such as an operation on a set)
• ring - ? (see Disputatio:Algebraica)
• topolgy - topologia
• topological - topologica
• set - coniunctus (hispanica conjunto)?

For abstract inasmuch as it is a terminus technicus you can probably just use abstractus -a -um.

equation is aequatio -nis, f.

I don't have much to suggest for the Algebra terms, beyond perhaps grex for group. Don't know about set though. The thing is, you can almost certainly find Latin texts on Algebra, probably even on the internet. Maybe I can help you with this later.

Speaking of which, is there a reason you went with the adjectivalized "algebraica"? It seems to me that as the title of an article algebra would do just fine.

--Iustinus 06:43 apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with algebra. It was algebaica when I first signed on to la:Wiki, so I just went with that. But I like algebra better. I can change that.

Yes, I do like abstractus -a -um better for abstract. Somehow, when I first read the Latin definition, it didn't say what I wanted (as a verb). But Whitaker's Words lists it as an adjective used in late Latin. So I'll change that.

I initially started using aequatio for equation. But the dictionaries I have mention equality rather than equation. Aequationum is mentioned in Whitaker's Words as "uncommon NeoLatin". So I'd like to keep these terms distinct for now.

Ring and Field were coined in the 1890s and their theory wasn't really developed for another 30 years. Few of these were published in Latin. In cases like these, I'll just try to come up with something sensible.

--Paulus 14:15 apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I've renamed pages for less. Let's move it unless someone objects before mid-tomorrowish.

I think you can see from some of the sorces I listed below that aequatio is the usual word. Aequationum is very odd, and I'm surprised that it actually occurs.

If the terms came into being 1890-1920, then I would be surprised if ANY of it was in Latin. Perhaps we can take a look at how the Romance Languages have handled the terms?

As for the article itself, perhaps the "final" version should start with the "common conception" of what Algebra is, since that's an important and basic part of it, and then move on to the more advanced stuff, which is, I believe, what the English version does.

--Iustinus 09:20 apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Ever thought of using aequalitas for equality, and aequatio for equation?--Faustus 15:28 mai 14, 2005 (UTC)

For set, I could think of many possibilites: agmen, collectus, cumulus, aggregatus, classis, etc.--jasonc65

Latin names of Euler and Newton

Euler himself signed his papers using the form "Leonhardus Eulerus", as can be verified reading the .pdf's contained in Euler archive, see e.g. Dissertatio physica de sono. The same thing for Isaacus Newtonus, you only need to take a look in the "Principia" to check that his name was latinized this way --Mafrius 22:47 aug 16, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. See Mathematicus for a list of Latin names used by famous Mathematicians. --Iustinus 22:56 aug 16, 2005 (UTC)

Fields of mathematics

I just reverted my own revision to include Number theory as a discipline of mathematics, as done on the english wiki page. However, on second thought I don't think it is necessary to do this, since that aspect of maths can be included easily on the algebra page. However, I think there is something wrong including logic as part of mathematics. Mathematical logic is a very different area than logic in general.--Rafaelgarcia 16:11, 19 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

aequator/labyrinthum

Scripsitne Gallilaeus labirinthum nec labyrinthum reapse?!?--Ioscius ^(disp) 23:28, 19 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Fuit solus ego qui in eius sententiam vertendo erravi.--Rafaelgarcia 23:49, 19 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Galileus numquam, ut noscam, scripsit de hoc latine quod eius aetate contra legem erat de heresiis talibus scribere. --Rafaelgarcia 23:54, 19 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, intellego, gratias, Rafael.--Ioscius ^(disp) 00:04, 20 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

de nomine

Nonne potius μαθηματική significat "ars discendi" quam "disciplina artium liberalium"? Cur huic conversioni haeremus? --Ioscius ^(disp) 03:58, 29 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

I don't know any greek to comment. However, "discipline of liberal arts" does fit with the medieval notion that Isidorus describes, which included even music.--Rafaelgarcia 02:53, 2 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Mathematica comes from the Greek verb (sorry I don't have a font on this computer) 'μανθάνω' which literally means 'disco'. Therefore mathematica is 'learning'. Putting in liberal arts is over translating in my opinion. I suppose disciplina would also work. But mathematica just means 'learning'.--Ioscius ^(disp) 11:52, 2 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Cassell's says mathematica = 'mathematics' and 'astrology', and mathematicus = 'a mathematician' and 'an astrologer'. IacobusAmor 12:48, 2 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I was debating the definition of μαθηματική, not mathematica.--Ioscius ^(disp) 13:44, 2 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Derivatives often take on meanings that are somewhat further from the root than the etymological connection suggests. This is what has happened with ἡ μαθηματικὴ (ἐπιστήμη). Thus, while μανθάνω means to learn, the feminine μαθηματική does in fact not mean the art of learning or the science of learning, but had become a technical term for mathematics in Aristotle's times at the latest - and this is in fact the only translation Liddell-Scott gives.--Ceylon 15:03, 2 Maii 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy with ars discendi as the translation, and then a note about the progress of its specific usage in the footnote?--Ioscius ^(disp) 20:20, 2 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable given the above discussion.--Rafaelgarcia 22:12, 2 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that, I misread Ceylon's comment. Let's just do (grace: μαθηματικὴ de verbo μανθάνω 'discere') with a footnote about the aorist stem and the probable former ἡ μαθηματικὴ ἐπιστήμη/texnh (soery, again no font on this computer, can only copypaste from above...). Ceylon? --Ioscius ^(disp) 04:37, 3 Maii 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that mathematicus, -a, -um is an adjective related to the noun mathesis, matheseos, it is not a noun itself (the same holds for the Greek mathematiké). Also, if you read Euler or other mathematicians of the time, you will find they used the term mathesis when they meant the discipline; mathematica appears only as an adjective. That's why I would change the title into mathesis.

According to Cassell's, Seneca used mathematica to mean 'mathematics'; and since the Classical style has since the Renaissance been the model of good Latin, perhaps the lemma should then be "Mathematica, sive recentius mathesis."

Both forms have been used as nouns. However, "mathesis/matheos" is very uncommon, and "mathematica" overwhemingly dominates. Not only Seneca, but also Isidore, used mathematica and today even in modern greek wikipedia it is Μαθηματικά.--Rafaelgarcia 22:12, 3 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Format

I changed the format of "Bibliographia" to the usual bullet points. Hope that's OK: on my browser, at least, it significantly improves the layout. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:52, 21 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me -- I usually remember these; maybe there were no bullets in the original bibliography before I went slightly crazy filling it in! A. Mahoney 21:02, 22 Decembris 2011 (UTC)